Fighters feel really overpowered

Comments

Should casters be able to cast better with improved spell management ? Sure, but that's not even the main problem. With or without SCS, lots of players take such liberties with gameplay that it renders enemy mages completely ineffective.

Believe it or not, mages are quite deadly without any mod IF and ONLY IF they're given a chance. I'll demonstrate that the problem is not a lack of spell power but more often than not the temptation to play unrealistically and cheese the game with some of its poor mechanics. Let's think about this.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the game neatly places mages BEHIND the rest of your foes ? Well, stop thinking, it's not. So what is the reason for a mage to be in the back ? Well, it's because front liners are supposed to protect him and receive the first blows. This implies that under normal circumstances mages are not easily targeted and have several seconds to actually cast something BEFORE getting hit, otherwise it's completely useless and absurd to repeatedly place them behind. Heck, if character placement wasn't supposed to protect them then they should be placed first line so their devastating spells reach you quicker, shouldn't they !?

So yeah, they're behind for a reason.

Now consider the following. Armed-to-the-teeth muscles stand in your way. What are you going to do ? Pretend they don't exist and immediately run forth so you can see if there's a mage and target him ? That's ridiculous. In any real fight your head would have been chopped off if you carelessly ignored front fighters you've never seen before.

And yet, what do people usually do ? They step up like it's nothing at all, pretty much ignore whoever is standing before them and focus on the mage at full strength so he doesn't have time to react.

Now, two comments : One, if the mage wasn't a serious threat then why bother killing him first at all ? Two, if it's completely unrealistic to put yourself at risk by moving so close to your enemies and give them time to attack you before you do, then why are you doing it ? Because you're cheesing, that's why.

Are you still having doubts ? Fine, so when was the last time the AI completely ignored your own party member placement and rush for your mage ? Haven't you noticed how the AI usually aims at who's the closest, especially at the first rounds of a battle ? Of course you have, that's why you keep your own mage safe and give some distance... so now you know you're willingly refusing to level the playing field. The AI is actually being more realistic than you. Don't blame it, blame yourself.

What any decent player SHOULD do is to shoot on sight those front-liners and THEN, after a few realistic seconds dealing with the muscles, raise your eyes, notice that there's a mage threat and change your strategy accordingly. You might think that it's a meaningless difference, but it's in fact a gamebreaker.

Those few added seconds are enough for a mage to cast stoneskin - and in BG2, they do that a lot - or to throw a nasty spell that will cause mayhem or even turn the tide. On the highest difficulty settings, you'll go raging mad when that lightning bounces back and forth wrecking half of your party. That can happen if you actually let the caster do his damn job and focus on his bodyguards first, just for a few seconds.

So maybe those first arrows/blows would have been more effective on the mage that was behind the muscles but unseen at the time. But what if there had not been any mage in the group ? Should you have waited a few more seconds staring in the hope that there would be one ? Are you even supposed to know if there's any mage ? No. You're not.

In doubt, you can't take those kind of risks, waste valuable seconds and give a miss on damage.

Now you could argue that a thief could scout the area and find out that there's a mage in the future fight to come. Although that's technically true, is it once again a normal thing to do ?

Well, let's wonder. You have a thief, he's very squishy, you absolutely need him to detect and disarm your traps later on, not to mention chests. The utility of a thief makes him a much more valuable asset than, let's say, one of your warriors. If you can no longer detect and disarm traps, open chests and so on, then it's time to head back and abort the whole operation... a fallen warrior, you can do without.

Not to mention.. if your thief is scouting away, who's watching out for traps anymore ? What if some ENEMY thieves decide to lay traps between your party location and wherever your thief is ? What if he gets detected, killed and someone smart enough decided to lay traps on the way home ?

Knowing all that, you MIGHT want to pay attention to his life unless you've got two thieves of equal value. Quite unlikely, to say the least.

So now you see why scouting should be realistically limited. Not by the game mechanic, but by yourself. A thief primary role should be to stick with the party and make sure Jaheira doesn't get her leg cut by one of those bear traps. If scouting, it should be for a close location after some hint that something is off, and then the party should remain steady until he comes back a few moments later.

Applying that little bit of common sense allows for encounters to be surprising and for mages to actually play their cards. Again, not the mages' fault if you deny them a fair fight.

But wait, there's worse.

Now that we've tackled how people usually engage the enemy so mages can't do what they're supposed to do, we must talk about how people usually prepare BEFORE any foe is visible at all.

Now, that's the cherry on the cake. It is.

Lots of people know from game experience or simple reloading that there's going to be four guys in twenty meters, one cleric, one fighter, one barbarian and a mage behind. Who hasn't switched his weapons before the encounter to best fit the next opponents ? What about buffs ? Potions ?

And who do you think is going to suffer the most from that ? You guessed it, the weakest foe in the first few seconds of the fight that will generally be targeted first : the mage !

To give in to that temptation once in a while is understandable, but then it's kinda ridiculous to blame the game for not throwing strong enough mages at you, isn't it ? You're breaking the rules of common sense yourself.

Mages are FINE as they are in Baldur's Gate, especially from SoA. They could have a better spell management, no doubt, but dwell on that and you can't see the forest for the trees.

Mostly agree with @Simulacre, but I think there is a subtle distinction to be made.

The AI is not engaging your front line to be realistic, but rather as an active aid to give players a chance. In practice, intelligent foes would know how to side the biggest risk, and take them out before they disable their party.

And note that I said intelligent foes - animals and low IQ humanoids likely would perceive the meatheads up front as the biggest threat. That said, predators generally prefer to isolate and take the weak from the herd, and those feeble looking mages to seem to hang on the edges...

I wasn't saying that the AI targets your front line IN ORDER TO BE realistic, just that it was realistic by doing so. I suppose that's also a subtle distinction to be made.

Keep in my mind that my main concern is with the first ten or twenty seconds of the game, and that's the amount of time mages need to actually cast something dangerous.

While I certainly find realistic to attack whoever you see first - meaning front liners - so you inflict some dagame early on, it starts to become less realistic as the battle goes on. After you engaged those front liners, you get a sense of the firepower of each of your opponents and so should the AI.

After a few seconds of analysis during combat, you know that one fighter deals modest damage and has poor AC because you had time to check what kind of armor he wore and what type of weapon he used not to mention the ease with which he wielded it, for the same reasons you know the other fighter is a more serious threat. You also know that the priest doesn't seem to have strong spells because he stands there using his sling while the mage is probably high-level since he decided to cast a high-level spell.

So really, it's only about dealing some damage as fast as possible to the front line until you get a sense of the situation by taking a hint at everything that's going on, THEN and ONLY THEN should you start targeting whoever seems the best foe to take out first.

Please consider that assessing the situation is not something you can do instantenously. Just because you see a mage, it doesn't mean that he's going to be your main problem. The mage can be of low-level, can be harmless because he ran out of spells in a previous fight without time to rest in between or can simply be less dangerous that front liners. Imagine for a second focusing on the enemy mage just because he's a mage while there are either Drizzt, Sarevok or Koshi just in front of you. What do you think is going to happen if you ignore that kind of front line firepower ? Well, you're going to be sorry for the rest of your death.

So if it's totally fine for the AI to focus on front liners at first, it's less and less acceptable as the fight goes on because then you're supposed to know how to play your cards best, and so should the AI.

Admitedly, there are times the AI will change its target and go for the weakest of your party members. I've seen it happens many times but it's not perfect as it doesn't always work. I wish the AI were better in that respect.

But then again, the whole point was to demonstrate that most mages are considered weak because lots of players play unrealistically, whether they do it consciously or not. Those legit seconds of front line focusing are enough for enemy mages to cause you much trouble, so give them that before complaining.

If the game was supposed to be played like that, pressing space wouldn't pause the game and still let you give commands. The reason why it's there is so that you can assess the situation instantenously.

If you want to be realistic, it's not realistic assessing the situation while getting cracked your skull open by the enemy frontline fighter either. You're not the frontline fighter, you're the guy seeing everyone from above and directly controlling the whole party. So hitting frontliner and then raising your eyes to see the mage at the back and assessing the situation then doesn't make sense to me either, not in this context at least.

You can't play the game like it's real life, so, there is SCS to make up for that. Instead of the user becoming dumber, SCS makes the enemies smarter, which is a better way to play in my opinion.

The reason for the pause button is mainly to help with the fact that you have to give various orders to up to six different persons at the same time with your mouse or keyboard, which is VERY hard without pausing. That is if you don't choose to give your allies AI. Actually, even if you do, you can decide to overwrite whatever companions intended to do first so there's a use for pausing.

It's not there to allow you to assess the whole situation instantenously at the beginning of a fight and if it really was MEANT to be played that way, as you say, then pausing would not be OPTIONAL and every fight would start with an automatic pause. It doesn't work like that.

So yeah, pausing just so you can grasp all the information that you can get and make a whole battle plan while, in game, your characters barely had time to flinch is mere cheesing. I prefer to let my characters take on those obvious front liners for a short while so they can make their minds about what's the best course of action next. THEN I give orders.

Also, assessing the situation while fighting is not unrealistic, that's what soldiers do. They control their fear and don't shut down their brains as soon as they fight. Most of the time, assessing and thinking in tense situations is exactly what saves your life.

Finally, you can't play the game like it's real life.. obviously. But just because it's a game and because it has some unrealistic aspects, it doesn't mean that you should not make an effort to make it more realistic.

Giving time before you make strategic decisions is definitely not making the player dumb, it's the exact opposite : it's about not making him an all-knowing prophet.

Targeting the enemy in mage robes immediately instead of the one in plate armor is not "cheese", it's common sense, both in and out of universe. I would do this every battle even if pause did not exist, and even if attacks of opportunity were in this game. The fact that the AI doesn't do this just demonstrates that the AI uses suboptimal tactics, not that the AI is being "fairer".

Though the point "why is it necessary to kill the mage first if he's so harmless compared to the fighter?" is indeed valid.

It's not common sense. A mage is not the biggest threat simply because he's a mage. He can be out of truly consequential spells, he can be low-level, or he simply can be less dangerous than front liners or potential backstabbers so you should NOT make a habit of targeting the arcane caster first without thinking. This kind of mistake is forgiven on the lowest difficulty settings but you're going to get annihilated if you let Koshi and his red-glowing apparent super katana get you on Insane because you feel it's mandatory to deal with his mage colleague first.

Also, let's not forget that using bows in close combat/when engaged - since this is what most people use to get rid of mages quickly - does make you more vulnerable to the enemy front line, and this is actually implemented in the game.

Back to roleplay, in what realistic world would you use a ranged weapon if a muscle was facing you with a two-handed magical sword that you have yet to feel ? This is crazy, guys. Watch any historical fight, archers ARE BEHIND front liners for the same reason mages are placed in the back : they're vulnerable.

So you need to assess the situation and then decide who's the biggest threat. In doubt and until you figure it out, just aim at who's the closest so you can strike early without putting yourself in a sticky situation, whether by using a bow before a sword-user or by running trough enemy lines like it's nothing at all and screwing the possibility that someone laid a nice trap there. How anti-roleplay can you be ?

This thread is a truly magnificent paradox. People say enemy mages suck but they're so afraid of their arcane firepower that they can't help but rushing their deaths with cheese tactics. And yet, while it's true mages have the strongest potential, it remains VERY situational and dependent on each mage's level and preparedness so they should not always be regarded as the biggest problem.

Even a low level mage waving his arms around, chanting, and making swirly colored lights, might be casting Sleep, Horror, or Web. Even a low level cleric waving his arms around, chanting, and making swirly colored lights might be casting Hold Person.

The reason all your party members know to immediately identify and target spellcasters, even while risking disengagement strikes from their bodyguards, is that any one of those spells being successfully cast mean death for your entire party. The end, you lose, TPW.

Heaven help you if those spellcasters have access to higher than second level spells. The second level disablers are bad enough. With more power, they might be casting Confusion, Chaos, Dire Charm, Rigid Thinking, Domination, Symbol: Stun, Maze, or the dreaded Imprison.

Most of your party has a chance to survive various nukes like Magic Missile, Fireball, all the way up to Horrid Wilting. I think damage spells are overrated. But a mind-controlled party is a dead party. They likely won't even get a chance to fight back.

It's disabling spells that make casters so feared, and so potentially powerful. And they should absolutely be priority targets in any fight.

You forget that there are many items against such effects and that your cleric's purpose is to counter those effects with his own spells. Your comment is however valid if you decide to wander around with no geared up cleric and butt-naked fighters, for some reason.

Yes, of course you want defense against mind-control magic, and yes, that's your cleric's main job besides healing. And it's why the "mage chess" arms race is so important in the game. I also think it's a good counterargument to the OP's assertion that fighters are overpowered. It's a game designed for team play centered around four important roles (fighter, rogue, cleric, mage), where each of the four has a vital function to the success of the team.

This kind of mistake is forgiven on the lowest difficulty settings but you're going to get annihilated if you let Koshi and his red-glowing apparent super katana get you on Insane because you brainlessly need to deal with his mage colleague first.

It's actually kind of nice that having not yet played past BGEE, I have no idea who you're talking about, because it reinforces my point. Even if it turns out to be a mistake, I will still target the mage the first time I have that encounter unless some kind of in-game dialogue context (perhaps "Koshi's katana can kill in one blow!" or some such) indicates that it's obviously wrong. This might not be the optimal strategy in that particular circumstance for reasons specific to that encounter, and I may lose as a result, but it will no more or less be "cheese" for me to do it in that encounter than in the vast majority of encounters in which it is, in fact, optimal, precisely because I follow a categorical rule of thumb when it comes to targeting apparent enemy mages first.

Your "rule" of targeting front line fighters a few times first is, I would think, quite obviously suicidal on harder difficulties. Harder difficulties essentially require at least some form of "cheese", which is why nobody's first playthough of BG is on LoB with zero reloads.

Yes, of course you want defense against mind-control magic, and yes, that's your cleric's main job besides healing. And it's why the "mage chess" arms race is so important in the game. I also think it's a good counterargument to the OP's assertion that fighters are overpowered. It's a game designed for team play centered around four important roles (fighter, rogue, cleric, mage), where each of the four has a vital function to the success of the team.

If you can counter what a low-level mage can throw at you, then there's no need to race every single mage opponent to the detriment of pretty much everything else. Is there ?

You made it look like mages were powerhouses from the start that would inevitably pin you down and cause death if you let them cast successfully. But that's not true at all.

That being said, I strongly approve your last sentence. The game was indeed very smart about those four classes because each can cancel out the other... at least until the end of the game when one trumps the others.

It's a shame that smart division of labor would then be defeated by multi-classing and especially that disgustingly OP fighter-mage.

This kind of mistake is forgiven on the lowest difficulty settings but you're going to get annihilated if you let Koshi and his red-glowing apparent super katana get you on Insane because you brainlessly need to deal with his mage colleague first.

It's actually kind of nice that having not yet played past BGEE, I have no idea who you're talking about, because it reinforces my point. Even if it turns out to be a mistake, I will still target the mage the first time I have that encounter unless some kind of in-game dialogue context (perhaps "Koshi's katana can kill in one blow!" or some such) indicates that it's obviously wrong. This might not be the optimal strategy in that particular circumstance for reasons specific to that encounter, and I may lose as a result, but it will no more or less be "cheese" for me to do it in that encounter than in the vast majority of encounters in which it is, in fact, optimal, precisely because I follow a categorical rule of thumb when it comes to targeting apparent enemy mages first.

Your "rule" of targeting front line fighters a few times first is, I would think, quite obviously suicidal on harder difficulties. Harder difficulties essentially require at least some form of "cheese", which is why nobody's first playthough of BG is on LoB with zero reloads.

My point was that you should not ignore a magnificent red-glowing katana that's about to strike just because a mage is there. I believe that's quite a hint, very muck like when an opponent is running at the speed of light or has some flashing two-handed sword that's twice your size. You don't need an explicit dialogue to tell you that this guy is nastier than the usual. I do remember freaking out before some front liners during my first playthrough and most of the time I was right to get afraid.

If you don't make decisions based on implicit elements that stick out of the ordinary, wouldn't that be a brainless way to play the game ?

Also note that Baldur's Gate is different from its younger brother. Close combat becomes much more important and dangerous for both sides so I'm not surprised you don't get what I mean.

It's actually nice to see a bit of love for fighters on the forums. While they may not ultimately scale up to the power of mages, a dwarven fighter is far easier to manage, requires virtually no rests and is not easy to stop with spells. If you've not played BG2 before though you will find some enemies that can easily stop a fighter unless you choose your tactics pretty carefully ...

Any kind of berseker/barbarian also shores up the weaknesses of the fighter nicely, allowing them to continue fighting even when forces conspire to make them stop.

Dwarven Berserker/Barbarian tackles it from both ends. Complete immunity to many harmful effects like Charm and Hold, and strong saving throws for everything else.

Wizard Slayer, despite its severe drawbacks, I hear is quite an unstoppable force at high levels too. In the Throne of Bhaal levels they start gaining Magic Resistance very rapidly, which in some ways offers more complete protection than Saving Throws or Rage, but it's quite a trek getting to those levels.

Berserkers are actually pretty OP. I dont even know why they exist. They are basically better barbarians. Their rage lasts longer, and the bonuses stack with everything, whereas barbarians are still limited to the stat cap of 25. They can wear full plate and reach grandmastery as well. Not being able to specialize in ranged weapons is pointless...there is no reason to do so anyway.

The only thing barbarians are really good at (when compared to berserkers) is resisting damage. Stick that defender of Easthaven in the offhand and you’re a sponge.

If I’m going for a power party, I have fighters in there; lots of them. They can be single classed, multiclassed, or dual out of fighter, but there’s fighter in there (with paladin and barbarian close behind).

Even in ToB, the spellchuckers are there for debuffing and then the warriors start chunking the baddies.

It's a shame that smart division of labor would then be defeated by multi-classing and especially that disgustingly OP fighter-mage.

I fully agree with this point. I played multi class once, too OP. If soloing with Scs and such it might make sense, otherwise I'm not doing it again. It felt like cheating.

This is also one of the main reasons why I like BG1 npcs more than BG2 ones. Many pure single class options, and more variety.

Agreed. There should be some real benefits for going above level 25 or so, this would compensate the fact that multiclasses tend to get twice the power single classes get. If Beamdog should rework something, I think that would be it.

It's a shame that smart division of labor would then be defeated by multi-classing and especially that disgustingly OP fighter-mage.

I fully agree with this point. I played multi class once, too OP. If soloing with Scs and such it might make sense, otherwise I'm not doing it again. It felt like cheating.

This is also one of the main reasons why I like BG1 npcs more than BG2 ones. Many pure single class options, and more variety.

Agreed. There should be some real benefits for going above level 25 or so, this would compensate the fact that multiclasses tend to get twice the power single classes get. If Beamdog should rework something, I think that would be it.

There's the argument that random bandits who shake people off for 100gp should not be using thousands of gold worth of potions.

There's the argument that is already being made, that "aggro management" is stupid and gamey and really has no place in 90% of fights. People fighting for their life have no time to scan the battlefield analyzing threats and then rank them by most dangerous and then switch to those targets.

There's the gameplay argument, which simply says not every fight should be using all(or most) of your "resources" and you shouldn't have to rest every two fights. In most RPGs enemies are clearly weaker than the player for a reason.

Then there's the class argument, which is just "okay so basically you reduced the entire game to mage fencing and everyone else is just hauling loot?"

In my recent playthroughs of BG, with SCS installed, I have found that fighter-heavy parties are preferable for the end-game battles, especially the ToTSC content. Any party, even most solo classes, can handle the basic BG content, even with SCS, but the ToTSC content (Durlag's Tower warders- if you do not run them through the fireball trap-, Chessboard, DemonKnight, Tanarii, and Greater Werewolf battles) go much smoother with more fighters. When the DemonKnight takes two swings at Khalid and then power-word kills him in 3 seconds, it is very helpful to have another fighter (Jaheira) to tank him with archers peppering him with arrows: especially because his next action was to power-word stun Imoen.

As to targeting mages first, this is not always the best tactic. Allowing Pride to rush your mages or Cloudwolfe to hammer your cleric with arrows (which the AI will do with SCS installed) or Rogues to backstab your cleric while you focus on tearing down mirror images and stoneskins is frequently a recipe for disaster. Oftentimes, it is best to have one character with an elemental weapon (usually an archer or mage with MMM) or your cleric with silence keep the enemy mages "pinned down" because other threats require more attention: such as immediately killing the rogue when he becomes visible before he drinks one of his 15 potions of invisibility.

You're double screwed if the enemy is a Druid and they get off Insect Plague.

You know, I've only known you a short time, but I'm getting the impression you like druids and Insect Plague.

Don't forget Bards!

@WatchForWolves You actually don't have to do ANY mage fencing if you run with a druid. Insect Plague will end every mage fight in a couple rounds (no way to protect against it outside mods, and it leaves mages unable to cast spells so you can whack them with no danger).

You're double screwed if the enemy is a Druid and they get off Insect Plague.

You know, I've only known you a short time, but I'm getting the impression you like druids and Insect Plague.

Don't forget Bards!

@WatchForWolves You actually don't have to do ANY mage fencing if you run with a druid. Insect Plague will end every mage fight in a couple rounds (no way to protect against it outside mods, and it leaves mages unable to cast spells so you can whack them with no danger).

I have no idea why the myth survives in the BG community that druids are under-powered. I find a single-class druid, of any kit, to be the most powerful class in the later stages of BG1 and the early stages of BGII. It is true that mages and sorcerors and various dual-class and multi-class characters surpass druids in the late stages of the game, but Nature's Beauty is such a powerful spell that druids remain a high quality class throughout ToB: better than clerics in my opinion.

I think that most people have the idea that Baldur's Gate is like an MMORPG in which the only measure of potency that matters is at the level cap, which accounts for about 2 hours of playtime through an 80-hour campaign if played fully and carefully. Various classes shine at various times in the saga. Fighters and Druids do dominate the later stages of BG1, but take a back-seat to mages in the later stages of BGII. Rogues, especially bounty hunters, become power-house characters in ToB.

I remember when I thought warriors were amazing and casters were tedious to use and generally weaklings.

When I soloed a sorcerer through Tutu, I found out that a caster was actually objectively better, though they tend to need more rests. Heck, a solo cleric is easier than a solo fighter, and 1 on 1 the cleric can win, easily if the warrior isn't immune to sleep.

I will say there are many useless spells out there, but things like a double Web sequencer, or even a double horror can win almost any fight with no challenge, and I assure you on high difficulty a non min-maxed warrior without buffs doesn't last long... you know, when a gibberling can one shot your fighter, but a mage can sleep several of them? Yeah. Heightened damage is a nightmare for a warrior.

Imho, the best item a warrior can use is the One Gift Lost, which duplicates a mage spell.

Regarding thieves, a Swashbuckler is probably the most straightforward solo out there, provided he's an archer mostly. Bountyhunters can do well, but you will want to be familiar with the game already. Assassins are a tougher solo, lacking as many points, but they do get poison weapon, which used to be amazing. Now, its merely still good, and you're again likely using a shortbow. Backstabbing is weak (more so at low level) without gear, especially if you don't use a 'sub-optimal' weapon like short sword or quarterstaff, which have good magic versions. Then again, a min-max half-orc thief is able to backstab reasonably at lvl 1.

i dont know if anyone asked this, but what difficulty is the OP playing on? killing firkraag in 2 rounds without buffs? there is no way in Hades that is on insane difficulty ( unless the OP went to spell hold right away and came back at 3 million XP ) and even then, something weird is going on here

i love the warrior type classes, even with the half-orc berserker with a two handed sword being one of my favourites, and i never really felt that he was so OP it made the game trivial and this is coming from a half-orc berserker who has 19 STR/CON 18 DEX, but then again, i play on insane difficulty, and tactics need to change dramatically from core rules to insane

on insane difficulty you cant just willy nilly party members into battle without a worry or care, hell even ogre berserkers average 30+ damage a hit, so even against level 5 fighters ( especially joinable companion fighters ) they are down in 2 hits

the OP also mentioned something about SoD where there was that one battle at that fort or whatever ( sorry for the vagueness but i've only played SoD twice ) and i remember that battle being a huge pain in the ass, ironically though, i learned afterwards that you dont actually have to fight that battle, but at the time i didnt know, and during that battle ( which was on insane difficulty ) i was struggling to win with 3 gnome berserkers and 2 mage types just blasting all the crowd control spells in the world, even casting spells off scrolls which is basically taboo in my play throughs

so i think the OP needs to crank the difficulty up to insane, and see if their OP fighter can take out ToB enemies without buffing, i can almost guarantee that demogorgon and abizigal will be impossible to win without buffs on insane difficulty, no matter who "OP" their fighter is